On Anonymous: new data available

I was going through Youtube today and found this. I think this is a new documentary about Anonymous?!

Whatever, the hottest news about anon is the US State Attorney Press Release stating:

A New Jersey man was charged today for his role in an attack on Church of Scientology websites in January 2008 that rendered the websites unavailable.

and

According to the criminal information filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles, Guzner participated in the attack because he considered himself a member of an underground group called “Anonymous.”

Advertisements

31 Comments

  1. Hi Pat,

    Thank you for your answers. A couple follow up questions:

    You mentioned that all the books were available in libraries and you’ve mentioned it before. However as I mentioned in the “no stupid questions” thread (which doesn’t seem to have an answer yet), it appears there is another book drive going on right now to get books into libraries. Why are they soliciting donations again if it was announced a few months ago that all libraries in the US have the basics? Or is it just a continuation of the previous drive?

    Second question is, I understand the concerns of people changing the books that are posted on the internet and I see everyone else’s point that downloading from the CoS website would hopefully counteract that, my question is, if Scientology’s goal is to clear the planet isn’t spreading the information in the most efficient way possible in the best interests of Scientology? In this case, via the internet?

    It’s not really “criminal” (that was a weird choice of words) to ask for the information to be spread freely. Scientology is already doing that by sending books to libraries. It’s just confusing that with a directed goal of helping everyone and clearing the world that the organization would be opposed to doing so in the most efficient means possible.

    Heck, from an Anonymous vs. Scientology point of view, having those books available to as many people as possible would possibly work in your favour. You can tell people to go to the library and read the books etc. but people are lazy. Having online resources to show people to counteract Anonymous’s claims would probably be benefitial.

    Thoughts? I look forward to your response.

  2. “Who’s going to control whether text is altered or not? It’s done even now, when the books aren’t published on the internet.”

    If anyone spots an altered text, which has been wrongly published under the name L.Ron Hubbard or Scientology, then he can report it to the CoS and since the CoS has a copyright, it can take legal action.

    “The only way you’ll know you have the true book is to have the true book.”
    Well, that’s a meaningless tautology.
    If the books get published on the internet, then a good way to make sure, that you have the true book is to download it from CoS sites instead of other sites.

  3. To those who continue to use this forum to make statements and fail to be respectful, you’re violating the FAQ.

    From the FAQ

    “Are there rules?

    Not many. Actually there is only ONE RULE: Don’t trash this place! I don’t want statements or lengthy introductions to your questions.”

    If there is something you actually want to know, ask a question.

    Pat

  4. Kenny,

    Who’s going to control whether text is altered or not? It’s done even now, when the books aren’t published on the internet. The only way you’ll know you have the true book is to have the true book.

    Pat

  5. “Still missing the point. Copyright and public domain is US Law, dudes.
    Internet is World wide. It’s BS if you think that having a copyright won’t stop a proliferation of copies and “excerpts” from being posted. This is still a criminal idea that no one really owns anything and it should be free for you. The books are priced very fairly and were made freely available in the libraries. Nuff said”

    Once the books are available for free in the internet, it doesn’t matter anymore, whether copies are made or excerpts posted. Why would you want to stop someone posting a copy or excerpt from a book as long as it isn’t an altered copy?
    The purpose of the copyright is merely to prevent, that someone makes an altered version of some book and prevents it would be the real deal. In this case the copyright holder had the right to sue and prevent anyone from republishing the works with altered content.

    This isn’t a criminal idea. It is a good idea how to disseminate Scientology more efficiently and at the same time improve Scientology’s image in the public.

  6. @Comment by Kenny on January 29, 2009 9:48 pm

    Still missing the point. Copyright and public domain is US Law, dudes. Internet is World wide. It’s BS if you think that having a copyright won’t stop a proliferation of copies and “excerpts” from being posted. This is still a criminal idea that no one really owns anything and it should be free for you. The books are priced very fairly and were made freely available in the libraries. Nuff said

    Pat

  7. “As soon as a book is published on the internet by the owners of the copyright, it loses it’s copyright. ”

    No, it doesn’t. The method of distribution of a work does not affect its copyright in any way. Have you never bought an ebook over amazon for example? Those ebooks have a copyright, too.

  8. @ Pat

    “As soon as a book is published on the internet by the owners of the copyright, it loses it’s copyright. That’s what public domain means. ”

    Sorry to correct you Pat, but the short answer is no, it doesn’t.

    Long answer is regardless of how I choose to publish something, whether that be internet, print, sky writing, whatever, I still retain copyright over that work. That’s why newspapers publish stories online. I can’t come along and take that work and republish it (legally). It still belongs to the newspaper. A book is no different.

    The internet doesn’t have some magical rules applied to it that as soon something is put on it, it’s free to everyone to reproduce. It’s just another means of publishing information. You don’t lose copyright over your work unless you directly give it up (by say telling people to spread it far and wide).

    There’s a ton of crap on the internet that violates copyright law in terms of people reproducing things they don’t own the rights to, I’ll give you that, but the simple fact of publishing something on the internet does not remove copyright from the owner anymore then putting a book on a bookshelf does.

    Now if the CoS doesn’t *WANT* to put the basics up on the internet, that’s their right as the copyright holder but there is no reason they *CAN’T* while still retaining copyright.

    Just because you give it away for free doesn’t remove copyright. If it did I’d have the right to reproduce those “The Way to Happiness” booklets that the CoS hands out. Hell, as a better example, I can’t just rip everything off the Scientology website and re-publish it, so throwing the books up there fall under the same rules.

    Sorry if that was really long and kind of ranty, I just wanted to clear up that misconception.

  9. @ Comment by Anonymous on January 28, 2009 8:50 pm

    Another statement. No question. Violates the only rule this blog has

    Pat

  10. @ Comment by Kenny on January 28, 2009 10:08 am

    >Making the basics available on the internet for everyone to download for free, while keeping the copyright to prevent squirelling, would be a good action. It does greatest good for the greatest number.

    Kenny,

    Maybe there’s a word here you don’t get.

    As soon as a book is published on the internet by the owners of the copyright, it loses it’s copyright. That’s what public domain means.

    Pat

  11. I have just setup a new blog.
    if you would like to contribute or view it, please visit
    askanonymous.wordpress.com

  12. Pat has already given the answer, Kenny, to which is good and which is bad. it doesn’t matter which of those opponents are considered to be good or bad. time will be the witness of who’s what..

  13. I apologise about the double comment, I had to correct my email addy, it is

    Legion_Z@live.com

  14. What people don’t seem to understand, is we are not against scientology as a religion, we are against some of it’s practices. Out of all the major religions on earth, Scientology is the only one that charges for it’s services. Scientology is the only one that recruits members under false pretenses (such as narconon) and Scientology is, as far as I’ve seen, the only religion in which critics and ex members are attacked viciously, ruined socially, and slandered publicly.
    I believe that you have the right to practice whatever the hell religion you want to, but when that practicion leads to the bankruptcy of hundreds of members, infringes upon the rights of others, and threatens the safety of people, those practices need to stop.

    I have the perfect example. I was at a protest a few months ago, and I had gone home to stay at a friend’s for the night. We noticed a couple cars that seemed to be following us on the way home, but as soon as we pulled into the driveway, they went on past, so I thought nothing of it. I got up the next morning to see one of the same cars, with the same driver, walking out of our driveway with a toolbox in his hand. I tailed him back to the church of scientology (I don’t think he noticed, otherwise I’m sure he would have taken me on a goose chase). When I got back to the house and examined the car, I found that the bolts on both wheels on the righthand side of my friend’s car were missing. If I hadn’t caught the man walking off, and we had tried to drive the car, the wheels would have fallen off while we were driving, causing a potentially deadly wreck.

    Tell me that isn’t messed up.

    I have no quarrel with practicing your religion the way you like it, but when you start doing shit like this, that’s going a bit too far

    If you wish to talk to me, I can be contacted at Legion_Z@live.com

  15. Kenny, i think that basic booklets are free to download.. at least i did.. i think i downloaded them from topix. but i can’t find it any more… if you are interested i can paste the web address over here (if that is ok).
    let me know
    best regards

  16. What people don’t seem to understand, is we are not against scientology as a religion, we are against some of it’s practices. Out of all the major religions on earth, Scientology is the only one that charges for it’s services. Scientology is the only one that recruits members under false pretenses (such as narconon) and Scientology is, as far as I’ve seen, the only religion in which critics and ex members are attacked viciously, ruined socially, and slandered publicly.
    I believe that you have the right to practice whatever the hell religion you want to, but when that practicion leads to the bankruptcy of hundreds of members, infringes upon the rights of others, and threatens the safety of people, those practices need to stop.

    I have the perfect example. I was at a protest a few months ago, and I had gone home to stay at a friend’s for the night. We noticed a couple cars that seemed to be following us on the way home, but as soon as we pulled into the driveway, they went on past, so I thought nothing of it. I got up the next morning to see one of the same cars, with the same driver, walking out of our driveway with a toolbox in his hand. I tailed him back to the church of scientology (I don’t think he noticed, otherwise I’m sure he would have taken me on a goose chase). When I got back to the house and examined the car, I found that the bolts on both wheels on the righthand side of my friend’s car were missing. If I hadn’t caught the man walking off, and we had tried to drive the car, the wheels would have fallen off while we were driving, causing a potentially deadly wreck.

    Tell me that isn’t messed up.

    I have no quarrel with practicing your religion the way you like it, but when you start doing shit like this, that’s going a bit too far.

  17. Making the basics available on the internet for everyone to download for free, while keeping the copyright to prevent squirelling, would be a good action. It does greatest good for the greatest number.

  18. i have a suggestion… why not post the videos showing the members of scientology harassing these ‘anons’?

  19. @Comment by Kenny on January 27, 2009 9:47 pm

    “thinking about scientology vs anonimous – it is a fact that good prospers and bad (evil) eventually succumbs…”

    >What is bad and what is good?

    Good question. Good is those actions which do the greatest good for the greatest number. Evil is those actions that do the least good or the most harm for the greatest number.

    Pat

  20. “thinking about scientology vs anonimous – it is a fact that good prospers and bad (evil) eventually succumbs…”

    What is bad and what is good?

  21. imagine that one day you wake up early. on one sunny day. you get out to buy danish, or waffles. you buy newspapers. local. and as the day is passing you are realizing that almost all the people you met and know, all your friends too, are clear, except you.. you stand stoned in a middle of your street trying to get a grip on what has happened to you – as if you just landed from another planet.. yet you lived with them all your life not knowing how far behind you have fallen. it doesn’t matter how did people get cleared – the point is that you are not. and that is scary

    thinking about scientology vs anonimous – it is a fact that good prospers and bad (evil) eventually succumbs…

  22. @ Comment by Truth on January 25, 2009 12:45 am

    Specifics aren’t your strong point, are they?

    Sigh. More “statements” and generalities.

    Pat

  23. “I just heard that the church is planning to build 10 new Ideal Orgs in Germany.
    Isn’t that awesome?”

    Yes, it is!

    Pat

    Sorry, i just wanted to see, if you would accept any theta information, no matter how absurd and your answer confirmed my suspicion.
    When i give you theta data, then you will automatically accept it.
    When i give you entheta data, then you will automatically reject it.
    You are not really interested in the truth of data, only whether it’s entheta or theta. That’s thought control.
    See here:
    http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2008/12/scientology-thought-control-part-1.html

    Merlin

  24. @Comment by Truth on January 23, 2009 10:25 am

    “Yeah that’s great, who are you going to fill those orgs with? The current orgs are already struggling. Doesn’t make much sense to build more orgs when the ones already there are hurting does it?”

    Huh? And you got the statistics of all the Groups, Missions and Churches from ….. ?

    You’re really amusing.

    Pat

  25. @Comment by Merlin on January 23, 2009 8:11 am

    “I just heard that the church is planning to build 10 new Ideal Orgs in Germany.
    Isn’t that awesome?”

    Yes, it is!

    Pat

  26. I just heard that the church is planning to build 10 new Ideal Orgs in Germany.
    Isn’t that awesome?

  27. @Comment by Truth on January 22, 2009 1:23 am

    huh?

    What problem?

    Pat

  28. If you have been active as a Scientologist and going to course and events you would have gotten the data.

    I understand that you consider yourself a Scientologist. I suggest that you read the Code of a Scientologist and the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics” for more data on how to correctly present your questions, and demonstrate your Scientology basics in a more prosurvival way. The book will also tell you who your correct terminal is for questions such as these. The Doubt condition comes to mind for a specific area you need to look at.

    Pat

  29. In all honesty I think it is likely that the number of incidents cited in that video is incorrect. There is no evidence present in that video that any of the acts, aside from the right of peaceful assembly, were committed by Anonymous.

    For instance;
    “According to the criminal information filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles, Guzner participated in the attack because he considered himself a member of an underground group called ‘Anonymous.’ ”

    I consider myself to be a Scientologist.

  30. @Comment by Teddy A. on November 21, 2008

    Read the FAQ.

    Pat

  31. Madame I find it difficult to believe in your position as a Fair and Balanced source on Scientology information if you will go so far as to delete those opinions that differ from your own.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed